In critically ill adult patients with COVID‐19, lower energy and higher protein intake are associated with fewer mechanical ventilation and antibiotic days but not with ICU length of stay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) nutrition management guidelines recommend hypocaloric, high-protein feeding in the acute phase of critical illness. This study aimed to determine, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, whether nutrition support affects outcomes in nonobese patients when providing a mean energy intake of ≥20 kcal/kg/day vs <20 kcal/kg/day and protein intake of ≥1.2 g/kg/day vs <1.2 g/kg/day, using actual body weight, and in patients with obesity when providing ≥20 kcal/kg/day vs <20 kcal/kg/day and a protein intake of ≥2 g/kg/day vs <2 g/kg/day using ideal body weight. METHODS: This retrospective study included adults with COVID-19 on mechanical ventilation (MV) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from 2020 to 2021. Clinical and nutrition parameters were recorded the first 14 days of ICU stay. RESULTS: . ICU length of stay (LOS) was not affected by nutrition intake, but patients receiving <20 kcal/kg/day had fewer MV days (P = 0.029). In a subgroup analysis, MV days were lower in the nonobese group receiving <20 kcal/kg/day (P = 0.012). In the obese group, those receiving higher protein intake had fewer antibiotic days (P = 0.013). CONCLUSION: In critically ill patients with COVID-19, lower energy and higher protein intake were respectively associated with fewer MV days and, in patients with obesity, fewer antibiotic days, but they had no effect on ICU LOS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".